Thread: Court: Obama appointments are unconstitutional

Once again, the former Constitutional Law instructor must be schooled about...

Constitutional Law...

A federal appeals court has overturned President Obama’s controversial recess appointments from last year, arguing he abused his powers and acted when the Senate was not actually in a recess.

The three-judge panel’s ruling is a major blow to Mr. Obama. The judges ruled that the appointments Mr. Obama made to the National Labor Relations Board are illegal, and the board no longer has a quorum to operate.

But the ruling has even broader constitutional significance, with the judges arguing that the president’s recess appointment powers don’t apply to “intrasession” appointments — those made when Congress has left town for a few days or weeks.

The judges signaled the power only applies after Congress has adjourned sine die, which is a legislative term of art that signals the end to a long work period. In modern times, it means the president could only use his powers when Congress quits business at the end of a year.

The court also took the time to remind "Professor" Obama that:

"While we recognize that all branches of government must of necessity exercise their understanding of the Constitution in order to perform their duties faithfully thereto, ultimately it is our role to discern the authoritative meaning of the supreme law.”

Once again, the Constitution gets in the way of the Obama far left agenda...

Thoughts?


Court: Obama recess appointments unconstitutional - Washington Times

that is a DC court too...

Threads merged...

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama violated the Constitution when he bypassed the Senate to fill vacancies on a labor relations panel, a federal appeals court panel ruled Friday.

And to the Federal Appeals Court:

Originally Posted by OldmanDan

This administration has no respect for the law or the Constitution. It's about time they got called on an issue. And this ruling was made by the DC appeals court, not exactly a bastion of Conservatism.

If I understand right, the issue is not recess appointments, which I don't like no matter who is President but that he did it when the Senate was NOT actually in recess.

Actually Reid was calling the Senate into secession every couple of days to prevent recess appointments.

It has to go to the Supreme Court. Judge David Sentelle is a Reagan appointee, who reversed the convictions of Oliver North and John Poindexter and appointed Ken Starr as the Whitewater prosecutor to reopen the Whitewater investigation, after the first Prosecutor, Robert Fiske had found nothing wrong with the Whitewater deallings of the Clintons.

Originally Posted by goober

It has to go to the Supreme Court. Judge David Sentelle is a Reagan appointee, who reversed the convictions of Oliver North and John Poindexter and appointed Ken Starr as the Whitewater prosecutor to reopen the Whitewater investigation, after the first Prosecutor, Robert Fiske had found nothing wrong with the Whitewater deallings of the Clintons.

And? Do you have something to add/say regarding recess appointments that are made when Congress is not actually on recess?

Originally Posted by goober

It has to go to the Supreme Court. Judge David Sentelle is a Reagan appointee, who reversed the convictions of Oliver North and John Poindexter and appointed Ken Starr as the Whitewater prosecutor to reopen the Whitewater investigation, after the first Prosecutor, Robert Fiske had found nothing wrong with the Whitewater deallings of the Clintons.

It was 3 zip a unanimous decision...

Read it here... http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/D13E4C2A7B33B57A85257AFE00556B29/$file/12-1115-1417096.pdf

Originally Posted by OldmanDan

...And this ruling was made by the DC appeals court, not exactly a bastion of Conservatism.

Not so at all actually. There is a huge difference between the city itself and the federal courts within it that handle internal and broader scope issues. It's the 9th Circuit that has the 'liberal' reputation, which is watered down a bit by Bush era appointees. Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Bork are all 'alumni' of the DC Circuit and several Bush 43 appointees currently sit on it. Rogers Brown is one of them who got on the bench only by the compromise made when the Dems filibustered the most controversially conservative proposed appeals court appointees during his second term.

Originally Posted by fishjoel

And? Do you have something to add/say regarding recess appointments that are made when Congress is not actually on recess?

Yes, there have been over 280 intrasession recess appointments going back to 1867.
For 145 years it was fine and dandy.
Suddenly, it's unconstitutional, suddenly nearly every president since Andrew Johnson has been using the constitution for toilet paper.

Lets see what the Supreme Court says....

Originally Posted by tsquare

Once again, the former Constitutional Law instructor must be schooled about...

Constitutional Law...

The court also took the time to remind "Professor" Obama that:

Once again, the Constitution gets in the way of the Obama far left agenda...

Thoughts?

Court: Obama recess appointments unconstitutional - Washington Times

This has little to do directly with any 'liberal' POV or even a conservative one insofar as nuts and bolts. It's pure old fashioned separation of powers stuff with each side involved, Executive and Legislative, dancing the tightwire of the vague 'recess' language on the topic and they both played some real grey area with a capital G with the definition as what they both respectively did, walking it to the wire as possible hoping they didn't cross it in the eyes of jurists who make the binding call whether it's a ball or strike.

The panel also didn't 'school' him. There's nothing frivolous about the legal dispute at all and clearly something where reasonable minds disagree. The only difference--although it's certainly the material difference--is that the judiciary makes the binding call. Blind idiots on the bench can make such calls just as sports referees can make bad calls in people's views. And this is not a dispute relating to blind error...it's very legally debatable. It doesn't mean anyone is entirely 'wrong' from an objective POV on testing the waters of the Constitution's massive vagaries and this is certainly one of them...it just means the referee makes the call.

It's also only a panel decision and wasn't issue en banc (whole court sitting) and as the OP article aptly points out:

... The judges’ ruling puts them at odds with several other federal appeals courts that have ruled the other way. And another case is making its way through the D.C. circuit and could be heard by another three-judge panel. ...

This panel decision is actually the minority view of the total sum of jurists who have visited the issue before. Eventually the SCOTUS will resolve this issue and whatever they say goes no matter the total judges who felt otherwise in the system who looked at it.

Still, it is IMO an interesting legal issues involved because the Senate clearly was playing a sham and Obama essentially challenged it with the appointments, but is the sham permitted where it can foreclose recess appointments? That's an interesting call and debate relating to form versus substance and should be interesting how the SCOTUS ultimately decides it.

Apparently, the whole thing was over the meaning of the word, "the." From the court:

It is this difference between the word choice “recess” and “the Recess” that first draws our attention. When interpreting a constitutional provision, we must look to the natural meaning of the text as it would have been understood at the time of the ratification of the Constitution. District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2788 (2008). Then, as now, the word “the” was and is a definite article. See 2 Samuel Johnson, A Dictionary of the English Language 2041 (1755) (defining “the” as an “article noting a particular thing” (emphasis added)). Unlike “a” or “an,” that definite article suggests specificity. As a matter of cold, unadorned logic, it makes no sense to adopt the Board’s proposition that when the Framers said “the Recess,” what they really meant was “a recess.” This is not an insignificant distinction. In the end it makes all the difference.

http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/D13E4C2A7B33B57A85257AFE00556B29/$file/12-1115-1417096.pdf

Wow. Also from the court...

Finally, we would make explicit what we have implied earlier. The dearth of intrasession appointments in the years and decades following the ratification of the Constitution speaks far more impressively than the history of recent presidential exercise of a supposed power to make such appointments.

As John Elwood of the Volokh Conspiracy points out:

It appears that the Court invalidated the use of intrasession recess appointments, which have been in pretty heavy use since WWII, and were used for a number of high-profile recess appointments, including John Bolton and Judge William H. Pryor, Jr. This is in pretty clear conflict with an Eleventh Circuit opinion and is a broader basis for invalidating the recess appointments than I anticipated. I suspect this one is destined for the Supreme Court.

Jurisprudence is confusing.